Peter Larsen wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."



Two letters: B.S.


No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.

Peter,

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

There are three digital standards in the U.S.: GSM, TDMA, and CDMA.
Each one utilizes multiple voice CODECs (coder/decoder) depending
on various parameters. For example, GSM uses FR (full-rate), HR (half-rate),
EFR (enhanced full-rate), and, recently (like within the year) AMR (adaptive
multi-rate)

Embedded in AMR are eight rates from 4.75 kbps to 12.2 kbps
(see http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archiv.../26071-400.zip).
These codecs are newer and thus provide a higher voice quality per kbps than
the existing EFR codecs. Additionally, they adapt based on the channel
conditions to trade off channel coding rate (the forward error correction
which prevents errors) and voice coding rate.

Additionally, to state that an analog phone "usually [provides] enough
range" is like saying that mixing bowls usually hold enough flour when
making a good cake. It is of some importance, but there are so many other
parameters that such a statement is almost silly. Cellular system tradeoffs
such as cell design, frequency reuse, battery life (which is almost directly
correlated with transmit power), and capacity all impact SIR (signal-to-
interference ratio) which also impacts voice quality. If the voice quality
of GSM in a certain area suffers, blame the carrier who laid out the system,
not the technology.

Thus, to make the simple statement that "an analog phone will give you
the richest sound quality" is, in general, not correct. Not even close.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr